Herve Nmn L'Eisa's past comments

@elbuda,
" The NRA are a bunch of hillbillies! Just a bunch of good old boys who want to keep the white man and women "safe" from "others." "

Hate to break it to you, but there are lots of us mixed race and other race members in NRA, many of which also reside in cosmopolitan areas. Point of fact, though, is that I WOULD prefer to live in a rural area and probably do so in the near future. I even have hispanic friends who are members, so please leave racism out of it.

Smith, sorry, I forgot to put quotations around your statement at the beginning of my last post .

I also meant to add that the action of the teacher defused the situation before the police arrived. However, the teacher was lucky that the student with the gun had respect for him. It very well could have ended more tragically.

One incident that was NOT reported on JT was that a teacher in a school somewhere in the US (I'm sure you can look it up) managed to TALK down a student who brought in a shotgun and heaps of ammo into a California classroom earlier this month.

Yes, I'm familiar with that instance. A brave teacher.
The USA-Today article had more info:
" http://fox8.com/2013/01/11/teacher-talks-armed-student-into-giving-up/"
Authorities say the shooter planned the attack and targeted students he felt had bullied him for more than a year.

The Sheriff's Department did not release the boy's name because he was a juvenile and had yet to be charged. But many students and community members said they knew the boy and said he was often teased, including Alex Patterson, 18, who went to Taft with the suspect before graduating last year.

"He comes off as the kind of kid who would do something like this," Patterson said. "He talked about it a lot, but nobody thought he would."

Trish Montes, who lived next door to the suspect, said he was "a short guy" and "small" who was teased about his stature by many, including the victim.

"Maybe people will learn not to bully people," Montes said. "I hate to be crappy about it, but that kid was bullying him."

My comment about machine guns not being legal is true, with very stringent, and few, exceptions.

Still hung up on the word "ignorant"? Let me give you a non-offensive example:

Though I am generally familiar with the workings of a television, I am ignorant regarding the circuitry contained therein. Before choosing a new television, perhaps I should become more informed of the differences between the LCD and LED types in order to make an informed decision and not just rely on the opinions of others.

The debate about the gun control legislation is deeply intertwined with the concept of individual rights and the rule of law. That is why the Second Amendment is so central.

From a WSJ article:
" we should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment forbids government from abridging that right. This is a subtle but very important difference.

With respect to protecting our children: In other areas where we intend to create a "weapon-free zone" (courts, airports), we have locked doors, metal detectors and multiple armed guards. Any "weapon-free zone" that lacks these is little more than an imaginary bubble where predators may be assured of the lack of armed resistance. It is no coincidence that the most notorious mass killings (including the one in Norway) occur in such imaginary bubbles of protection. A less costly option is to allow responsible adults to be legally armed on campus."

When the Second Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well practiced." At the time, it was considered impractical for citizens to become well practiced with firearms, unless they had recourse to firearms in their daily civilian lives. Readers of American military history understand references to "regulars" and "irregulars," the former being practiced and regularly assembled militias (in some ways similar to our National Guard or Army), and the latter referring to less-practiced, ad hoc assemblies of combatants. "Well regulated" did not refer to the presence of regulations governing their activities.

The Rights pre-exist the formation of the Federal government. The Declaration of Independence is the seminal document.

" The ad, which cast Obama as hypocritical for having expressed skepticism about putting armed guards in schools, when “his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools,” drew widespread criticism when it first became public on Jan 15.

Nationwide outrage over the shooting of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec 14 moved gun violence and gun control to the center of the U.S. political debate."

While it IS true that political leaders' children need heightened security protection due to the particular risks(as evidenced by SS omnipresence ), it is also true that the children of both haves and have-nots should be equally safe. Does that mean all schools should have armed guards? To me, that question is best answered on the local level.

"I just don't believe that people aren't buying guns because they feel that another person with a gun will be there to protect them."

Do you mean that you don't believe that people ARE buying guns because they feel that another person with a gun WON'T be there to protect them?

From a WSJ article from 2009:
" In August, the number of background checks performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Instant Criminal Background Check System was up 12.3% from the same month in 2008 to about 1.1 million.

That is down from the nearly 42% increase of November but is still a growth rate that would be the envy of virtually every other consumer product category.

And, while the number of background checks is a good barometer of sales, that doesn't tell the whole story as some of them may have been performed on purchases of multiple firearms. In addition, some private transfers and gun show sales are exempt so the actual number of guns sold is likely higher.

The main force fueling this gun-buying binge is the election last year of President Barack Obama and the large Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives. Democrats are generally perceived to be hostile to the interests of gun enthusiasts and their organizations, so a type of "buy now while you still can" mentality took hold.

"It really began in the middle of October last year," said Lawrence Keane, vice-president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "Sales have been up in double-digits in every month since, except July, which is seasonally slow anyway."

"A big part of it is the political dynamic," Keane said. "People have legitimate concerns about new regulations [although] economic worries are a factor as well. We are also seeing a goodly number of first-time buyers and firearms safety education courses are filled all over the country."

" Best would be if a future Supreme Court took up Justice Stevens' argument and reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment along those lines: That the "right" to bear weapons belongs only to a government-recognized "militia," and that for all else, it is a privilege, akin to a drivers license. This would rid the American legal system of the existing relative garbage conservatives love to pretend is absolute - that what the Constitution guarantees as your unalienable right is by necessity what we rather capriciously say it is; when one so-called "right" can be treated so lightly, others may well be adversely affected. Rather, gun ownership viewed as a privilege would lead to a far more logical and legally defensible system - as is the case in most other advanced countries."

Riiiiiiight...first reduce the right to adequate self-defense to a privilege granted to only some, those deemed worthy enough, a privilege that can also easily become withheld, and make even those few sheepishly compliant. Yeah, that'll go over well.

It WILL make people safer, and those that are emboldened to pursue violence won't have the ease of access to such weapons as they do now."

The studies prove your statement to be incorrect.

"Not if they give up their assault rifles, which they most certainly do NOT need one bit."

Again, this is purely your opinion, and not factual.

"And why do you guys ALWAYS fail to answer to the fact that 'lawful citizens' have such weapons taken away from them and used in massacres? You simply CANNOT deny less damage would have been done in Connecticut if the murderer (and keep in mind he was a lawful citizen until the committed the massacre!) did not have access to the assault weapon in particular."

Ah! Let's clear up a couple inaccuracies wrapped up in that statement. ONE person had weapons taken, namely Adam Lanza's mother. Adam's FIRST crime was premeditation. Nary a caring mother would reasonably anticipate that their own child would take a gun to his/her own mother in such a way. To my knowledge, there's no factual information to indicate the woman failed to adequately secure her weapons. It IS known, however, that Adam was clever, but again gaining access to those weapons was also a crime as was MURDERING his own mother. So, even before stepping out the door he had already committed several felonies. One could also postulate that had Adam not avidly played video games such as Mortal Combat, or whatever, he may also not have been desensitized to the horror of shooting people. I'm not blaming video games, but the blame is squarely on Adam as every crime is on the criminal.

The War on Drugs has contributed greatly to violent crime in America, and many other countries, but the supply of drugs is unabated.

The proposed law would not have prevented the terrible tragedy in Sandy Hook, however.

" machine guns- or fully-automatic weapons - are Type II weapons, which, while not technically being illegal (depending on the state), are heavily regulated." And between the regulation, taxes, etc effectively takes them completely out of the equation, thus a moot point.

Smith, though we disagree quite deeply on this issue, I haven't disparaged you for your opinion. We just disagree.
You view elimination of rights as the solution. I don't. The proposed legislation eliminates rights of the people. That's the crux.

" It was a well known fact Obama was going to look at tightening gun-control laws,"

But he lacked the gumption to ACT. Until after the election, of course.

" Because people like LaPierre are indeed gun-nutters, but calling another poster on this board, directly or by insinuation, 'ignorant', is not only an attempt to insult but a clear sign of the inability to argue a point without resorting to said insult in an attempt to undermine the other poster(s)."

Ha! That's rich. There was no such insinuation. Big difference between one being ignorant on a specific topic and being an ignorant person in general. And "in an attempt to undermine the other poster(s)" is indeed ironic, or shall I say ironical, just for giggles?

Smith:" So, we must have experience in firing weapons to know that assault weapons, used in in many massacres, like the AR, are unnecessary? I need to go to a firing range and be trained to have an opinion on the deaths of so many children by people with access to lawfully owned machine guns?"

A Saul Alinsky disciple's non-sequitor retort.

But you SHOULD understand that:

A. Murder is wrong, regardless of whom the victim(s) is/are or the method.

Is it not ironic that the NRA's Wayne LaPierre's pre-election prediction that should Obama win re-election, the right to bear arms would be under distinct threat has proven already to have been absolutely correct?

I REALLY wish Obama would have had the integrity to propose and actively pursue such legislation during his first term or in the run-up for re-election. Oh, right, JOB SECURITY.

" Unfortunately, that(respect for the power of firesrms) is not a requirement for buying a gun. I applaud your respect but we both know not everyone has it and it doesn't stop them from getting their hands on one."

Yes, I agree with you on that. Violent criminals will do criminal acts. Even in places where guns are strictly prohibited, they are and will be available, but only to those flagrantly willing to take such risks, and typically with nefarious intentions.

Do suggest prosecution for thought-crime as well? Because that's what it would take to prevent such crimes.

It is paramount that one's stated opinions be INFORMED opinions and not to emanate from lack of information or experience. From that perspective I inquire:

How many of you posting here have actually:

A. Fired any kind of firearm?

B. Had any kind of firearm training?

C. Fired an actual Assault weapon(such as M16)?

The reason I ask is that the lack of knowledge/experience, as opposed to stupidity, is a breeding ground for fear. If you've never had any training with firearms, I highly recommend that you get some. That's not to convert anyone into a pro-guns person, but rather to remove the veil of lack of knowledge that clouds the rational mind.

I answer Yes to all the above. I don't love guns. I have a deep respect for them, and that respect is tempered with the knowledge of their destructive power. Most importantly is the value of human life.

The proposed legislation is as wrong-headed as a football-bat. It won't reduce criminal gun violence. I won't make anyone safer. But it WILL embolden those bent on pursuing violence. And further, it WILL criminalize a significant portion of presently law-abiding citizens. That, in and of itself, is an act of tyrannical violence. My brother, who is in law enforcement, and I agree on very few subjects, but this one we are nearly of one mind.

Why didn't Obama try to enact gun legislation in his first term or discuss it during the election campaign? That's easy to answer with two words: JOB SECURITY.
Look at the unfulfilled first-campaign promises. He had a better chance of doing something in his first two years, but didn't. Why not? JOB SECURITY.

And, SAMs? Not necessary, but available from the same drug-supply folks armed by Eric Holder's Fast And Furious goons.

The EU is a sinking ship, not unlike the Costa Concordia. But, don't expect a Grexit to lead the way. The takers will keep taking til there's nothing they can take.

Best to observe the Germans as they attempt to repatriate their gold (all holdings stored in UK and France, and part from the FRB in NYC(who, btw, are saying it'll take SEVEN YEARS to get out of the Manhattan vault - Is it even there?).